Packages with missing %check

[Stanislav Ochotnicky]

On Wed 05 Mar 2014 03:57:17 PM CET Alexander Todorov wrote:
> На  5.03.2014 14:12, Stanislav Ochotnicky написа:
>>
>> Why are you filing bugs (with patches) you don't understand then?
>
> This is a foolish statement to make without knowing what I do and don't know or
> understand.

That's the whole point though. Several people from Java SIG feel the
same way about those patches...

>> Patch which contains text which you haven't verified is
>> correct. Quoting:
>>
>> +%check
>> +# tests are executed during %build
>> +
>>
>> How do *you* *know* they are executed during build?
>
> FYI, first I got a list of possible packages which have their tests run in
> %build from mizdebsk, then I inspected them and built them *by hand* to verify
> that was indeed correct (e.g. apache-commons-codec, apache-comons-logging,
> python-blivet, python-urlgrabber, etc.)

So you are filing bugs for components which *are* running tests. Is it
so weird that we consider that a non-issue while we have possibly
hundreds of packages which are not running tests at all?

> If you find a patch which is incorrect (that is not running the test suite
> properly or stating an invalid comment) point me to it and I will work to update
> it.

Every single patch is incorrect due to one problem:
$ rpmlint apache-commons-codec.spec
apache-commons-codec.spec:58: W: macro-in-comment %build
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Sure it's a minor thing, but I'd hope as a QA guy you might appreciate
the irony.

Putting that aside, I've always worked with one though when working on
Java packaging (quoting Exupéry)
 [snip] perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but
 when there is nothing more to remove.

I am yet to see a convincing argument for empty %check sections
improving Fedora either for users or developers.

--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky at redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Developer Experience

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140305/2c2d25d8/attachment.sig>